Strategies and tactics for closing public services in "dark times

Citation

Dufour, Y. and Steane, P. (2012), "Strategies and tactics for closing public services in "dark times", Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 4 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjba.2012.41504aaa.001

Strategies and tactics for closing public services in "dark times"

Article Type: Editorial From: Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Volume 4, Issue 1

In the Asia Pacific region as well as all around the world governments have never been under as much pressure to close public services in order to cut their spending and, ultimately, to reduce their deficit. It might well be another feature of the “dark times” that Kym Thorne, Alexander Kouzmin and Judith Johnston are talking about in their paper of this opening issue of the APJBA’s fourth year. Confronted with conflicting interests and the likelihood of resistance, the key people attempting to close local public services ought to take conscious steps to secure results. A quick look at how that has been done around the world in recent years suggest that there are seven key managerial tactics falling into three categories or strategies that are often combined by the key people leading implementation of public service closure proposals:

1. 1.

   the legitimating strategy;

2. 2.

   the enforcing strategy; and

3. 3.

   bargaining/negotiation strategy.

The legitimating strategy consists of various managerial actions primarily intended not to defeat opposition but, instead, to mobilise support and to prevent resistance from arising in the first place. In the light of the findings presented by Thumwimon Sukserm and Yoshi Takahashi in this issue of the APJBA some might raise concerns about ethical behaviour in using such a strategy. Implementation is achieved by influencing the way people feel about the physical outcomes of closure such that it is deemed legitimate, inevitable or acceptable. There are three specific tactics for mobilising support and quieting opposition:

1. 1.

   climate setting;

2. 2.

   opportunity costs; and

3. 3.

   reducing service levels.

Indeed moving directly to bold actions can be costly. Building a climate conducive to change, prior to focusing on the specific issue of closure, is probably the most complex and time consuming tactic. Success requires, at least, two basic conditions:

1. 1.

   creating credibility for management; and

2. 2.

   genuine public consultation.

Here, the consultation process is primarily used as a review system in which both proponents and opponents are able to contribute to the closure decision-making process. A third condition for creating a receptive climate for change is to provide legitimate reasons for closure when the proposal is ultimately mooted. The concept of opportunity cost rarely enters into a public policy debate. The cost of initiating a new policy, for example, is expressed in mere dollars – not in terms of opportunities forgone. This is even truer when the policy choice concerns the closing of a government facility. Certainly a more significant benefit than mere money ought to be required to justify ending a service that, when it was instituted, was considered important and essential. The third tactic of the legitimising strategy consists of using every opportunity, as it arises, to reduce service levels in advance of the total closure. Failure to achieve total closure following consultation, working parties’ reports, and formal evaluation of services provide such opportunities. The consultation helps in deciding which new level of services will be accepted without substantial opposition. The strategy contributes by creating a sense of inevitability and powerlessness among the interest groups concerned. The shrinking and de-escalation of expectations can contribute in bringing movement into previously contentious and deadlocked processes.

The enforcing strategy consists of using power and legal authority to defeat opposition. Basically, the strategy aims at imposing the closure and can be both demanding and of considerable importance: Enforcing one’s way over others requires the expenditure of resources, the making of commitments, and a level of effort which can be undertaken only when the issues at hand are relatively important. There are two specific tactics for enforcing implementation:

1. 1.

   arbitration; and

2. 2.

   temporary closure.

The former tactic simply consists of pushing directly forward and referring the proposal for central government decision regardless of the strength of local opposition. The main purpose of local consultation is then either primarily symbolic or, at best, to inform the various groups involved of the decision already taken by the local authority. The second tactic, temporary closure, also uses legal authority to defeat opposition. This tactic consists of closing the facility to assess and demonstrate the capacity of the interim arrangements to cope with the volume of services. Consultation is then used to inform the various interest groups of the thinking of the authority, both of immediate action and long term plans.

The third strategy is bargaining and negotiation. The central objective is neither to defeat opposition nor to prevent resistance arising but to get something done, albeit at the expense of some of the original intentions. Indeed without total control over resources, agencies and the whole implementation environment, those wanting to do something may be forced to compromise their original intentions in order to get any action at all. Both proponents and opponents used the consultation process in order to reach a mutually satisfactory compromise. The first tactic of the bargaining and negotiation strategy is to reduce change expectations to known acceptable levels before consultation is undertaken in order to secure approval. Consultation is then basically used to promote managerial good will and to create credibility for managers. Probably one of the most popular tactics combines retrenchment with development. Consultation is used to promote the new development allowed by the retrenchment, thus splitting potential opposition. The redevelopment contributes to minimising the impact of closure. Any effort to minimise the impact will further reduce the short-run savings from the closing, but it can also help reduce the political resistance. Those who receive direct benefits will be mollified, and political leaders who believe the closing is inevitable may, if they have a real opportunity to influence the transition, devote their energies to planning for the future rather than resisting the closing.

The central point in relation to the closure strategies is that there are no simple universal rules: the choice of a particular approach, as well as the efficiency of a particular strategy or mixture or group of strategies, is highly context sensitive. In this issue of the APJBA Mark J. Ahn also stresses the key role played by context in building a global competitive biotechnology industry in India whereas Syed Zamberi Ahmad shows the path towards globalisation in his study of the banks in Malaysia. The question then becomes: in which contexts do the public service closure strategies seem to be appropriate? The nature of the local has a strong impact on the implementability of the public service closure proposals. The main features of the locale are twofold:

1. 1.

   objective; and

2. 2.

   subjective.

These factors are important because they contributed to the power resources of the groups involved. Of the former, the most important elements are: the geography, the number of competing centres of populations and the major public services sites in the area, the pace and rate of change in the structure of the local population, the strength of the local citizen bodies and their access to wider support from the local network of interest groups, and the socio-economic structure of the area. The difficulty of implementing closure of public services also depended on the way the local population perceived their situation. The more subjective elements include: local opinion concerning the quality of the services provided, the timing of the proposal versus the national climate of opinion on the management of public services, the history of mobilisation around the services as well as other local issues, the culture of the locality, the attitude of the local population towards their local facilities, and the local MP’s political security in his constituency. Although many of those factors may appear beyond management control, the awareness of their influence could nevertheless be important in anticipation of potential obstacles to implement public service closure proposals.

Bargaining and negotiation would be a suitable strategy where both the objective and the subjective features of the locale are, on the whole, not conducive to the closure of the facility. In contrast, the enforcing strategy and tactics may be appropriate when both the objective and the subjective contexts are generally conducive to closure, yet resistance is manifested by some individuals. The aim of the legitimating strategy is to set a more conducive context in anticipation of the closure. The strategy is appropriate when at least some of the major objective and subjective features of the locale are already conducive to closure and, therefore, can be mobilised by the people leading implementation.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, leadership is also an important factor in implementing the closure proposals. As argued by Luu Trong Tuan in this issue of the APJBA that is also the case in implementing integrated performance measurement systems in manufacturing companies in Vietnam. Furthermore, continuity of leadership is desirable because knowledge of locale is, perhaps, then at its best. Although this might appear a truism the quality of the closure proposals is also important. Indeed failure to develop an analytically sound proposal and to justify the closure decision risks increasing the power of the opponents as well as to weaken the efficiency and effectiveness of whatever strategies and tactics that are used to close public services. Indeed most of the times closure demands prior guarantees that changes – to programs, institutions, and affected publics - will leave the aggregate or net situation at least as good as if not better off than it was before. The burden of the proof for this guarantee resides not with the politicians that are making the decisions but with the local public managers responsible for their implementation and their evidence, if not their relative or situational power, must be nearly overwhelming. In such circumstances it is often difficult for the local public managers to summon up and maintain the willpower to face up to conflict and have the tenacity to implement local public service closure decisions essential to cut government’s spending as witnesses by what has now been going on for some times in Greece, Italy as well as in the USA. In the end and for those public service managers responsible for implementing the closure proposals the whole process can, at best, be extremely demanding and more often than not extremely unrewarding. That raises issues for managers’ career success as reported by Jacqueline Dahan and Yvon Dufour in this issue of the APJBA.

Yvon Dufour, Peter Steane